Only if the amount of wug is a prime number.
This is because non-prime numers of wuggi are highly unstable and will split into separate prime factors of wug if there's enough space (and in most atmospheric conditions).
You could share this sublemmy's pinned post, or the megathread it links to:
Ik it's only anecdotal, but I played Brawl Stars when it was in beta and witnessed almost all its updates until global launch (and have caught up with some more recent updates here and there). It went from a genuinely fun mobile game with character and potential to a plastic husk primed for whatever monetisation and "engagement" strategies analytics says needs to be shoved into it next.
At the time I couldn't fathom how all those updates that often made gameplay and progression less fun could ever be more "engaging" (the change from portrait to landscape in particular felt like straight up poor game design, trashing its unique mobile control schemes in favour of digital twin joysticks and "autoaim"), but in hindsight it's clear what that really meant.
Oh I don't doubt that those in power are complicit in the exploitation (I disagree with calling it feudalism, however). Ridding themselves of responsibility by blaming colonialism sounds akin to Israel deflecting criticism by claiming anti-semitism.
The statist perspective is unable to properly address these inequalities and injustices because it cannot reject the hierarchical power structures that caused them in the first place. Foreign intervention is just colonialism 2.0, but the more "reactive" alternative is just leading to a situation where measuring immigrants by their worth as 'skilled workers' and 'ease of integration' is pragmatic. I'm not gonna deny that there's a kind of sense to this, because that's exactly what makes it so worrying. At least with the old racist pseudoscience we can point and laugh at how nonsensical it was.
Ah, fuck, I usually at the very least skim things before I share but this time I just assumed from the title... my bad, the article has nothing to do with this topic.
Still, my general point is that European colonialism in Africa can't be considered a "solved" issue, because of capitalism's (and 'western' capitalists') roles in continuing to exploit its natural resources and perpetuating systemic wealth inequalities. I think that profling populations by nation/culture is a fundamentally flawed way of approaching the difficulties of (mass) immigration, plus it's an even more dangerous road to go down. Whatever the qualities of cultures and hegemonies that persist in whichever regions, populations aren't homogenous, and states fail to represent their peoples.
Of course, there are many factors and actors involved in the many social instabillties / conflicts plaguing the world, and anything I might value as an anarchist (e.g. open borders and mutual / humanitarian aid) would be nonsensical to apply as government policies. I don't have a 'counter' solution to propose.
lf all this is "thought terminating" in the sense that I'm unwlling to go down the path of 'pragmatism' in which peoples' worth is profiled and measured and weighed, then so be it. As I see it, that kind of thinking as part of problem, not the solution.
Look, I'm always down for learning more about history, but who's "Nigeria"? To who was "Nigeria" selling slaves to? Modern states are never representative of specific / homogeneous cultures, let alone individual peoples, let alone societies from before the state was even formed. After skimming a few wiki articles, it's clear that the region has had its own fair share of struggles against authorities, slavery, and racism, even before European colonisation, some of which continue currently.
Still, none of this reached the scale of european colonisation / "the scramble for Africa", and the continued political and economic influence and control that 'the West' continues to hold and wield (neocolonialism / recolonisation). I know nowhere near enough about critical theory, but I'm sure these processes can be understood as a form of deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation (I wasn't able to find a freely available copy, but this article seems like it could be a relevant, interesting read: Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization of the Orisha Religion in Africa and the New World (Nigeria, Cuba and the United States).)
Regarding Syria, "my approach" would be simply to support more movements / projects like Rojava (which is clearly not something that 'western' political powers are interested in doing). As an anarchist I don't think liberation from state authority can be achieved through state authority.
So... are we gonna pretend that colonialism played no part, and continues to play no part (via capitalism), in today's "material conditions"?
How many racisms does one have to do before they can be considered "far right" enough to be called a nazi?
Recognising mass-immigrantion as non-ideal can be valid if coming from a place of compassion. But with this perspective, mass-immigration is seen as a symptom of wider socioeconomic problems (or non-societal factors such as natural disasters), not as a problem in itself that needs to be "fixed" by sending immigrants "back home".
Furthermore, seeing immigration as a cause for socioeconomic problems only comes from a place of racism, ascribing negative expectations to people according to their country of origin / culture / ethnicity. It is clear that you stand with this camp from how you phrased what you think "the left" thinks:
"Immigration is good from any country in the world and if you have any reservations what so ever you're racist".
It implies that a person's country of origin plays a factor in whether or not they can be considered a "good" immigrant. That's racist.
...and it was all a dream.
Is noone else gonna point out the absurdity that if the guy had been 1 year older, legally speaking there would've been nothing wrong?
The problem here is the grooming (which I think it's worth noting that adults can be victims of as well), the abuse of power dynamics, and particularly in this case the exploitation of another's inexperience for personal gratification.
But the article instead focuses on how the kid was "affected" by the teacher's "criminal actions", but then essentially just describes the kinds of consequences caused by the social stigma of student-teacher relationships. But this also happens in university, where it also carries negative social consequences, but not legal ones.
My point is simply that the legal system is a flimsy caricature of morality/ethics, and in articles like these it really shows.
The deregulation march you're talking about is neoliberalism, and it hasn't just affected USA. And in a sense neoliberalism is capitalism's response to regulation.
It's not that regulation doesn't work per se, it's that the (political) hierarchy through which it functions is susceptible to being taken advantage of, and inevitably it will be (*has been) taken advantage of by the capitalist class to protect their economic hierarchy.
For democracy to truly represent the people it'd need to be federated from the ground up through free association. Large scale organisation and cooperation would be ephemeral, existing when/if the need arises and dissolving as soon as projects are concluded (or cancelled). But within the rigidity of the current system(s), where power is consolidated at the 'top' through processes we're lead to believe are necessary for 'order' (when their real purpose is of course control), horizontal forms of social organisation seem impossible (I like how Anark calls this - "hierarchical realism").
Can we please stop pretending "regulation" is all that effective. It's been tried, and has resulted in corrupt bureaucracy or given way to neoliberalism (and corporate bureaucracy).
What we need is a radically different system where the power truly is in the hands of the people, and not just nominally like in representative democracy (and which is completely lacking anyways in most workplaces). And what this requires is the construction of fundamentally different modes of production and human interrelation that will not resemble what we've got now, neither economically nor politically nor socially. Regulating capitalism won't get us there.
Communism is by definition moneyless
But yes anarchy is less prescriptive
Personally though I'm sceptical that money can be without hierarchy, or that the distinction between necessities and luxuries is all that meaningful, since it's all very relative
Once I kinda half-forgot my birthday for a split second.
Like, I had to take an extra moment to remember it, which felt weird.
